Harry

Excellent post.


As dragartist says, the aircraft have been stripped and rebuilt by L-3. The problem you have to contend with is how to reconcile the differences between the new standard (rebuilt to different standards) and what has "operated for many years without mishap".

If the differences are minor, then the MAA may choose to give more weight to this historical evidence.

However, if the cumulative differences are great, there is no supporting evidence to plug gaps in knowledge and the Aircraft DA is reluctant to sign up to changes, then the MAA may play the red card. The evidence suggests something like this has occurred.

It boils down to "engineering judgement". As MoD admits it lacks this expertise, Philip Hammond will presumably bring his to bear. :}

There is, of course, another less worrying possibility... maybe the full documentation, including the performance figures, is quite expensive and therefore delivery (and hence the payment for this) has been slipped to the next financial year to save costs? (not an unknown state of affairs). If this is the case then the aircraft will certainly be up and operating by the end of the year as stated by the MOD to local TV.


W. (clutching at straws).

Knowing the raf the font used for the 'ROYAL AIR FORCE' lettering is probably causing sleepless nights, as is the shade of gray paint.

"If this is the case then the aircraft will certainly be up and operating by the end of the year as stated by the MOD to local TV."

'Operating' may be a mute point that will continue to fuel the debate, but 'up' is more tangible. With Waddington's runway due for major work from early July if its not 'up' by then it won't be for some considerable time.

Part of the plan - we would fly it but unfortunately can't because of the runway repairs.....??

CAEBr

Tut tut, such cynicism CAEBr!

CPants Comments and Book: Nothing to do with Rivet Joint!
 

The aircraft and incidents CPants writes about concern RC-135E Rivet Amber, which disappeared over the Bering Sea in Jun 1969. This WAS NOT a Rivet Joint aircraft!

My error in reading very similiar tail numbers. The aircraft in question was a TC-135, converted into an aerodynamic Rivet Joint configuration as a "bounce bird". It does not carry mission equipment.

CPants made the local news with his claims for about one day. Not a factor in fully-configured Rivet Joint aircraft.

For the record, two Cobra Ball RC-135s have crashed at Shemya AFB and one RC-135 trainer near Valdez, Alaska, in addition to the Rivet Amber. All except Rivet Amber were the result of pilot error.

No Rivet Joints or Combat Sents, current operational RC-135V, W, and Us, have ever crashed or caused an airborne loss of life.

Just to clarify, does this mean the book is completely irrelevant to Rivet Joint? I wouldn't want to waste my couple of quid!

The book I have is RJ not RA.

I refer you to post 510 (Orac's question) and cpants reply at post 517

I understand Rivet Amber was the name given to a single aircraft which was lost in 1969. Plenty of learned stuff readily available. LFH

Thank you guys.

Harry you ask;

I believe that the safety case must include an a assessment of all known and potential hazards, all of which should be managed to ALARP. Potential hazards are identified through experience and brainstorming. Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it will not happen. A fire in Dry Bay No 7 of XV230 had not happened in 35 years of Nimrod flying but it did on 2nd Sept 2006. The coroner's verdict was that the aircraft had never been airworthy.

DV

I read C pants $3 book. The incidents he refers to were all in the 2000 era long after Rivet Amber.


I do have some sympathy for his plight but I don't think I would have gone about it that way.


I do not believe for one minute that the conditions he describes will prevail on our 3 aircraft.


the summary he makes at the end of his book, having been allowed back into the hangar, suggest that corrective actions are in place.


Keep raising the F765s, F760s and all the ASIMs (or what ever they call them now)

With 35 years of successful operations, I'd call that assessment risible on the basis of that one incident.

Lonewolf
With over 2000 hrs on type and a friend on 230, so would I. :ok: Just for pedantry the MR1/MR2 combo made 40 years of service.

Lonewolf and RP

I am afraid you like many others confuse serviceability with airworthiness. On the day of XV230's accident the aircraft was serviceable, it just wasn't airworthy. Whilst MoD did not agree with the coroner's findings, initially, the aircraft was "prematurely" withdrawn from service less than two years later, despite an extensive replacement programme of fuel and hot air pipe couplings.

DV

DV,

Agreed but I thought this was purely as a cost saving measure rather than any aircraft safety issues being a factor.

Well DV, that is where you and I disagree. I think I understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness thanks. A combination of unforseen events may, or may not, have caused the accident. Hundreds, if not thousands of similar AAR events happened without incident, so for a coroner to say that the aircraft was unairworthy was somewhat disingenous. What was deemed safe engineering practice in the 1960s or evene the 1980s might not be deemed safe today, but it might just as equally not be unsafe.

The MR2 was taken early, as a savings measure, by the previous government. Most of the people I know who were flying the aircraft at the end were not concerned about the airworthiness and would have been happy to continue flying the jet.

RP:-
Were the events not 'foreseen' by the Airworthiness Regulations? Did they not forbid the passing of fuel lines joined by couplings through a dry bay that included a source of ignition? Wasn't that the situation with XV230? Wasn't it therefore unairworthy? So how was the coroner being disingenuous?

Pot calling kettle black?

Chug

You will have to forgive me but I do not have a copy of the accident report to hand, but my (somewhat faded) memory seems to remember the fuel came from elsewhere leaking into the dry bay not from any couplings within the dry bay. Am I wrong? I thought the fuel came from one of the centre tanks. Back to you.

As to airworthiness regulations, when were they written; before or after the aircraft was designed and built?

"What was deemed safe engineering practice in the 1960s or even the 1980s might not be deemed safe today"

And getting back to the RJ isn't this the problem being faced today. Even ignoring all the excellent points being made about build standard, eng records, availability of documentation etc.

Is an aircraft designed tested and built to standards of the 60s/70s/80s (even if we assume that it was tested to, and fully met these standards) acceptably safe to bring into the inventory?